Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists – Joseph de Maistre

Menu

What Must We Do?

As traditionalist conservatives, we recognize that the cultural and political order is fundamentally corrupt. Therefore we oppose it.

On November 6, many of us had hoped that the election of Romney could slow the rate of destruction, giving a real opposition to liberalism more of a chance to grow and perhaps, given enough time, even halt the decline.

But our hopes were dashed, and the decisiveness of the defeat has caused many of us to see the situation in a new light: It appears that the left rules without any significant opposition, and that no force is capable of preventing liberals from dragging America down to destruction.

This is not to say that conservatives never win political battles. They often do at the local level, and occasionally do at the national level. But overall, conservatism does not currently have the strength to reverse the course of liberalism.

Our fundamental analysis of the situation remains the same but in light of the latest defeat, how should we reorient our thinking? More specifically:

.

1. What should we be trying to do? At The Thinking Housewife, Lawrence Auster writes:

Dissidents seek to change their society. But we cannot change our society. Instead, we must seek to create a new society or at least the seed of a new society (even if, for the foreseeable future, it is only an “ark,” as Malcolm Pollack says) that will be separate from the United States though within its borders. So we are separatists, not dissidents. [Emphasis added.]

Traditionally, conservatism has attempted to block liberal initiatives and to reverse established liberal policies. But as Mr. Auster has articulated, we do not have the ability to reverse liberal policies, and we have only a very limited ability to block its new initiatives. We cannot change society. This inability is not a doctrine that can be proved, but is instead an intuitive insight coming from one who has enough knowledge of the particulars, and enough general wisdom, for his intuition to be correct.

So traditional conservatism, at least at the national level, is effectively dead. It will undoubtedly continue to go through the motions, and occasionally do some good, but it cannot do what is most important: retake America from the left.

And if so, then we must switch goals, from defeating the Left to preserving whatever we can of what is good about America.

.

2. What should be our relationship with America, or should we call it the United States of America?

America is our nation, the land where our fathers died. But America has become the homeland and headquarters of institutionalized liberalism, a liberalism that wickedly defies God and seeks to destroy Christianity, the dignity of white people, and our traditional way of life. And America aggressively seeks to export liberalism all around the world. What therefore should be our relationship with America?

To be traditionalists rather than revolutionaries, we must aim primarily to preserve something good which we have received from our ancestors. We must primarily be about preserving the best of the America, the best of our people’s ways. We need a way to distinguish between the part of America we are preserving, and the part we are rejecting and need to protect ourselves against.

I don’t think there is a simple answer to this question, but I think the basic answer is to look at American life prior to roughly 1960. The American way of life back then, although it contained the seeds of the destruction that is germinating all around us, was fundamentally solid at the level of everyday operations. The traditional way of marriage was publicly honored, even as subversives were working on destroying it. Sexual sin was publicly opposed and dishonored, even as subversives were working to elevate the status of fornication and perversion. America was seen as a nation of white people, run according to the traditional ways of white people, in which nonwhites were welcome to participate as long as they did not seek to subvert the majority order. And so on. Pre-1960’s America gives us a concrete model to emulate, albeit with some modifications to account for current conditions.

.

In an important discussion at The Thinking Housewife, Laura Wood and her interlocutors have been discussing the question, to express it crudely, of whether “America” is just the people, or also includes the government. To continue to express it crudely, the question is whether we are to seek the preservation of only the people, or also of the state.

Although we can conceptually distinguish between the people and their governing institutions, in practice these cannot fully be separated. The governing institutions express the people’s view of who they are and how life ought to be ordered. And it will not be enough to preserve physically the existence of (mostly) Christian white people who reject the thinking and way of life of liberalism. A nation is more than its people and their immediate way of life. A nation includes the institutions that govern it and give it structure, such as churches, courts, colleges, government, and so on .

And this means that in order to preserve a remnant, we will need a group of interrelated institutions that express in concrete form the understanding we have of the meaning of life and our way of life. We will have to preserve, or perhaps create anew, a set of governing institutions that will embody the authority that every society needs.

These institutions must not be seditious in the ordinary sense of the word, or they will bring down the wrath of the state and be crushed. To be effective, they will have to operate in a way that does not threaten the state.

How exactly can we do this? At this point, nobody knows. But we don’t need to know the particulars in order to know what generally is to be done. We must actively work to preserve our people and our way of life against a liberal juggernaut that cannot currently be defeated, just held at bay.

.

Some concluding points:

.

Liberals currently view America as nothing more than a Forum where individuals and groups “pursue their dreams.” If they mean when they say, then whites, Christians and Traditionalists will have to be allowed to pursue their dreams too.

.

Talk precedes action. Through words, we clarify our understanding of the situation, we raise our spirits by articulating what’s wrong and what we aspire to, and we attract allies and converts. Our words do not change minds by the force of their logic. When it comes to topics as deep as the ones we are concerned with, changing minds by sheer force of logic and reasoning is impossible. Instead, with our words, we place something before the reader. We simply show, and some respond.

.

We must constantly petition God on behalf of our people and our enterprise. Our task is exceedingly difficult; in fact, it is humanly impossible. We must fortify our minds, do what we can, and petition the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to make the necessary change happen.

Post navigation

104 thoughts on “What Must We Do?”

My view is that the leftward ratchet, the Hegelian Mambo, has been in operation for the entire history of the US. The right-liberal or conservative wing has been an essential component of this ratcheting mechanism. (It pains me to say it, though I’ve said it for decades, because by disposition and temperament I am also conservative).

Some number of conservatives appear to be entering into a state of alienation because of recent political events. That will pass: I once felt that alienation too, back about two decades or so. The fact that the political machinery that governs Occupied America is politically leftist/liberal – it always has been to some extent, and that extent naturally increases over time through the false left liberal/right liberal dichotomy – doesn’t make this place, this people, this history not our own. Occupied Rome is still Rome. The feeling of alienation will pass, and will give rise to the liberating realization that the civic mythology is just that: a civic mythology. There is so much more to life than the self-deceiving ritual of democracy and denominational hermeneutical squabbles over the meaning of Constitutional Writ; and what the future holds only Providence can tell.

The united States of America was founded to a large extent on ideas of the French Revolution. So, when Zippy says, “The fact that the political machinery that governs Occupied America is politically leftist/liberal – it always has been to some extent, and that extent naturally increases over time through the false left liberal/right liberal dichotomy – ” he is correct. Everybody points to the 60s as the moment when we became “liberal”, but that was just the point at which the two parties aligned and essentially became one, big progressive party with some minor internal dissention.

We have been living with liberalism run amok for 40 years and we still have not figured out how to fight it. I am a mere foot soldier, but I sure hope some of your brainiacs figure out what to do – and pronto.

For the moment, the basic answer is clear: Whenever possible, do not go along with liberalism. And when forced to go along, recognize that you are acting under compulsion in order to secure an overall gain, and that you do not agree inwardly.

“Liberals currently view America as nothing more than a Forum where individuals and groups “pursue their dreams.” If they mean when they say, then whites, Christians and Traditionalists will have to be allowed to pursue their dreams too.”

This is naive thinking. Liberals do not acknowledge any idea, position, concept, theory or philosophy of life that is inimical to their worldview, which is why all conservative (for lack of a better term) thought is denounced as irrational or motivated by bigoted sentiment. Accordingly, no institution which dissents from the liberal paradigm will be permitted to exist, ever. It is an offense in and of itself. Moreover, if it shows itself to be sustainable and more functional than the liberal behemoth, its existence will become all the more offensive and unacceptable. The general consequence of all of this is that Traditionalism will need to go underground now, at least to some significant degree.

Good to hear from the Aussies, especially those fighting the good fight.

I was engaging in a little speculation, indicated by my saying “if they mean what they say.” It is mostly the right-liberals who see America as a Forum, and the left liberals will, of course, not be very sympathetic to us.

On the other hand, people occasionally are forced to take their words at face value, and all this talk of “tolerance” might induce an episode or two of genuine tolerance.

I am of the opinion that the Anglo world is gone. It is only a matter of time before even our desire just to preserve is destroyed. We are going to be oppressed like the Israelites in Egypt were under the Pharaoh. Perhaps the boot will not start kicking our teeth in this decade or the next but it is coming and we are beyond the point of stopping it. The Nordic countries also appear unlikely to prevent this oppression either. Now, do not misunderstand me, I am not just saying our chances at reclaiming these countries is finished I am saying our chances of even preserving tradition in these countries is finished.

Our last chance is to look to the east. Consider learning an Eastern European language or at least have your children learn one. Our only hope at even self-preservation is inevitably going to come down to an exodus.

That is what I have been saying for the past 12 years when I started going to Russia regularly. I even started learning Russian 3 years ago!
However I only half believe it myself.
Reason is that I see a lot of real life left in the real peoples of Northern Europe (at least the UK, Holland, Flanders, Denmark, maybe Germany) and also some parts of Spain and Italy. There is life and the potential for real violence which is inseparable from real life.
Things will get worse for sure but a spark is bound to go off somewhere…

Certainly the future is not written in stone so I cannot say anything for certain. But let’s say Northern and Western Europe do reawaken, at best it will only be racially. While it is nice to live amongst our race life will still be unbearable because hedonism, atheism, and modernism will still continue on in the other aspects of life. People will not suddenly recognize their faults, seek forgiveness, and return to Christianity. Once again, it is not impossible just highly unlikely. In the meantime I have decided to learn Hungarian; with my Hungarian ancestry and current family living there it should not be too hard if/when the day comes.

Hungary seems to be doing pretty well so far. They were able to push back the Leftist lunatics howling over the constitutional reforms. And Hungary’s Prime Minister is at it again saying Europe’s crisis is due entirely to the loss of Christianity and saving Europe can only come about by first returning to Christianity.

Yes, that’s why I cited that example. What is going to preserve them when the US elites decide to take them out? The way they have taken out innumerable inconvenient governments over the last couple of decades.

Bill,
For something so massive the “elites” would need the support of too many people in too many Nato nations.
Besides Russia will not tolerate something so gross so close to its borders especially knowing that a large portion of native europeans will view them as liberators. They have learned the lessons of Yougoslavia and I think are ready.
As an aside: back in August 2008 I was negociating a contract in Russia when the South Ossetia thing began and I started joking with our Russian counterparts (some were ex-army officers) about our personal safety, the border being just 1000km away. Their answer, to my surprise, was that this was the start of WWIII… They did not appear unduly concerned.

“Liberals currently view America as nothing more than a Forum where individuals and groups “pursue their dreams.” If they mean when they say, then whites, Christians and Traditionalists will have to be allowed to pursue their dreams too.”

But, if they do not mean what they say, then we will not be allowed to pursue our dreams, so we had better not give up on the fight against leftism in the political state just yet. So, let’s have a little test of whether liberals mean what they say. If they do, then churches, ministers, wedding photographers, etc., will not be forced to perform weddings for homosexuals; if they don’t mean what they say, then the contrary will be true. Don’t we already know the answer to this test?

I don’t think there is a simple answer to this question, but I think the basic answer is to look at American life prior to roughly 1960….America was seen as a nation of white people, run according to the traditional ways of white people, in which nonwhites were welcome to participate as long as they did not seek to subvert the majority order.

It is a mistake to try to build a better yesterday. We are a far more fractious nation now than we were half a century ago (although things were pretty unsettled if you go all the way back to the beginning of the 20th Century). Still, it would not be better if minorities were denied entry into the fullness of civic life. Who would wish necessities like this on anyone, anymore?

We have to see concrete instances of our ideals somewhere, and many of them only appear in the past. For the ideal does not just consist in some people voluntarily living a traditional lifestyle; it consists more importantly in that lifestyle being publicly honored.

And there is a great difference between “minorities not denied entry into the fullness of civic life,” and the current situation, in which whites and their ways are being deliberately targeted. We oppose the second, not the first.

Bah. Would you rather live in the White Run America of 1949, or the Black Run America of 2012? One is fundamentally decent, the other is fundamentally a monstrous engine of chaos, death, and destruction.

Ironically, the White Motorist Green Book is a necessity in 2012 America, but you can just ask Derbyshire what happens to people who set down any genuine, useful rules for whites in Black Run America.

No my friend, this kind of furious energy, the attempt to exterminate whole nations (regardless of blood relations) for the sake of profit under the disguise of religious fanatism was introduced by the anglo saxons. It went from Cromwell to the Puritans of New England who transformed into Yankees and are now Neocons bringing Democracy to the world.

Um, neither the Americans nor the Brits tried to exterminate the Germans. Nor were the Anglo-Americans fighting the war for “profit”. That is a moronic interpretation of Anglo-American objectives and methods.

And it’s really ironic to complain about the Anglo-Americans “trying” to exterminate the white nation that actually put into effect a program to exterminate other white nations (Poland, Russia, Ukraine, etc.) for fanatical quasi-religious reasons.

Furious efforts to exterminate whole nations go back to the Greeks and Romans. Trying to pin this idea on Cromwell and the Yankee Neocons is simply bizarre.

Sorry I do not dare to deconstruct the mountain of lies from which such a bizarre view on history is deduced. It is after all what you learn in school. Not just in your country, but also in Germany and the rest of the world. In the American Civil War at the latest (but already practiced on an inferior level by their Cromwellanian Puritanic ancestors) the Yankees invented the war of propaganda on a completely new level. They demonized their enemies beyond recognition and transformed the enemy into an criminal who was not only to be defeated, but to be punished as an criminal and reeducated. This punishment and reeducation was first practiced on the South and later on the Germans. Very effectively as your comment shows.

Sorry I do not dare to deconstruct the mountain of lies from which such a bizarre view on history is deduced.

I don’t think you are capable of it. But please, bring it on.

My view of history is based on logic and evidence.

The Yankees did not invent propaganda any more than they invented visiting enormous destruction on their enemies during wartime. Nor, for that matter, did the Yankees invent the concept of war crimes or punishment of defeated enemies.

I don’t know if they were trying to kill all the Germans, but it was hardly denied by the ruling classes, in either of the two wars, that they were trying to destroy historical Germany *as a people*, not just resolve some dispute or even institute regime change.

I don’t know if they were trying to kill all the Germans, but it was hardly denied by the ruling classes, in either of the two wars, that they were trying to destroy historical Germany *as a people*, not just resolve some dispute or even institute regime change.

On the contrary, they explicitly denied that they were trying to destroy Germany as a people. To restrict the discussion to the British and Americans, in WW1 and WW2 the British essentially sought a return to the prewar status quo. They understood full well that to punish Germany excessively would only benefit France and Russia, not Britain. The Americans, in WW2, certainly wanted to reduce German power dramatically, even eliminating Germany as a military power was not the same thing as destroying Germany “as a people”. And, of course, as soon as the war ended, the Americans realized what the British always knew, which was that punishing Germany too severely only benefited the Russians.

Destroy Germany! Is British Demand: http://www.unz.org/PubSocialJustice-1940feb26-00021
There are innumerable documents that prove that the British Oligarchy wanted to destroy a people such effective as the Germans. For the simple fact that they stood in their way of world domination. And they used the Americans to achieve this.
Anyway, we are left with one plain fact: for at least 80 years now, all media, small and large, have relentlessly and ruthlessly denigrated, persecuted, slandered, humiliated, ridiculed, reviled, robbed and spat on the German people. There has been no truce. No exception. No dissension. Any stick has been good enough to flog the Germans with. No media campaign in history has lasted that long and been so intensive and unanimous. Germany must represent a real threat to someone. As Kaufman said, “Germany must perish!”

There are innumerable documents that prove that the British Oligarchy wanted to destroy a people such effective as the Germans.

Nonsense. The British wanted to remove Germany’s ability to destroy the European status quo, not to destroy the German people. This is not the same thing. There are innumerable documents that demonstrate this.

The Germans did not stand in the way of British world domination. The British in 1914 and 1939 were a satisfied power – they had everything they wanted, and their only goal was to keep what they had.

they used the Americans to achieve this.

This is exactly backwards. In WW1 and WW2 the Americans used the British to advance American goals, and furthermore destroyed Britain as a world power in the process.

for at least 80 years now, all media, small and large, have relentlessly and ruthlessly denigrated, persecuted, slandered, humiliated, ridiculed, reviled, robbed and spat on the German people. There has been no truce. No exception. No dissension. Any stick has been good enough to flog the Germans with. No media campaign in history has lasted that long and been so intensive and unanimous. Germany must represent a real threat to someone.

Germany certainly deserved to be denigrated, persecuted, slandered, humiliated, ridiculed, reviled, robbed and spat on. Such is the appropriate penalty for strategic ineptitude, atrocious methods, and losing the war.

The postwar hate is not directed so much at Germany, as such, as against the very idea of bourgeois authoritarian nationalism, for which Nazi Germany is the Left’s designated proxy.

“We now need to talk honestly about the German question, as uncomfortable as it may be for the Germans, for our international partners and for ourselves …
The question remains in essence the same. Not, how do we prevent that German tanks roll across the Oder or the Marne, but how Europe is to cope with a people, whose number, talent and efficiency makes it into our regional superpower.
We have not in 1939 entered the war to save Germany from Hitler or save Jews from Auschwitz or the continent from fascism.
As in 1914, we have entered the war for the no less noble reason, that we could not accept a German domination of Europe.”

“The British wanted to remove Germany’s ability to destroy the European status quo, not to destroy the German people.”

Funny how you bend around the real issue. They did not destroy the rest of the Germans because after taking from them everything east of Berlin (one third of Germany) and raping, killing and displacing more than 10 millions by doing this, reeducation worked so well. Otherwise there had been the Morgenthau solution. “Germany is an occupied country. And it will stay that way.” Obama in a speech before american soldiers in 2008.

The German people are a destroyed people. They are destroyed like the Irish are destroyed. Get it. If you do not get it, you and the monsters you defend, can walk alone into their white paradise.

Your reaction reminds me of this story I heard about Peter Brimelow. In an conference where he was promoting white solidarity he was asked what kind of society he would promote. He said: “Elizabethan England”. Elizabethan England, where Catholic priests were stragled with their intestines when they dared to read the mass! There is such is such an ignorance by this Cromwellian, Puritan, Yankee ethnicity concerning the havoc they wreaked over the Earth, with their system of state sponsored usury and their century long attack on the Church. This is not comparable with anything else. It brought about us progressivism and conservatives defending the roots of what brought about us progressivism. And as long conservatives do not get this, nothing will change. If I had the choice to live as a Dhimmi in Muslim Lands (still able to practice my religion) or in Elizabethan England what do you think I would prefer as a Catholic!
BTW I got the Brimelow story from Michael E. Jones. And I would everyone here advise to read “Libido Dominandi”, “Slaughter of Cities”, “Degenerate Moderns” and his forthcoming book about capitalism to understand the mentioned problem on a deeper level.

must read: … were strangled … wreaked on the Earth … There is such an ignorance … centuries long attack on the Church …
Sorry and no offense to anyone here.

BTW The „monsters“ will not go to any paradise but follow the path Dr. John Dee laid out for himself and for them. Dr. John Dee, the adviser and spy of Elizabeth I, the coiner of the term British Empire, the original 007 (he signed his letters to Elizabeth with O-O 7. O-O stood for spectacles „I’m your eyes“ and the seven has a cabalistic meaning). Dr. John Dee laid out the path when he invoked the Archons. And their dwelling place is Luzifers dominion. This is not necessarily what I believe, but it is something what actually some people believe who dwell beyond the 33th degree and whom you find in Bohemians Groove, the Trilateral Commission, Goldman Sachs and other places. And they think it is a good place. Now some of you can finally put me in the category of weird and find their peace.

If Mr. Fink wants to say something to demonstrate that he is not simply a hater of America (and perhaps white people); if he wants to show that he has some affection for a part of America, and that he might wish us well, then let him go ahead. Until then, I will regard him as our enemy.

This does not mean that I will attack him, or even badmouth him personally. It means that I will be on guard against him, and be prepared to defend against him.

Wow Alan, you are really pathetic. And you react like a typical liberal. I, as a German, belong to a people who live in a country that is occupied by America. A country that, like almost every other nation in the world, is fed a steady diet of multiculturalism and perversity by your State Department, regardless of what president or party is in power. Not to forget this special outlet of your foreign policy, called Hollywood. In this way I am an American too. I am even more qualified to speak as an American by the fact that 20 to 30 years ago I was an executive of an international New Age cult that had its headquarters in America. So I was quite some times on American soil in the company of a lot of Kohns and Levys and even some scions of WASP dynasties that turned Buddhist. I turned Catholic but I never forget what I saw and learned about America. My American friends now are a great people and mostly belong to the 65% that did not vote. And they feel occupied like me. They must be your enemies too.

Apart of Prinz Eugen and me there have been quite some people in this thread that pointed to the main incoherence in you article. Which is, that America did turn liberal since the 60s and is now, after this election, lost; which is, from our point of view, nonsense because America was infected by liberalism since its founding. Are they also your enemies or is this status received to people that write a little more sharply and concretely? By the way, I have a scrapbook firefox extension by which I save every step in this thread. And the comments, that are deleted show me, what you do not want to hear.

Anyway, by the reaction on this election the whole Austersphere, to which this blog belongs, has demonstrated its fundamental disconnect with reality. You address the effect, not the root causes. So you are flabbergasted by events like this. When it comes to the root causes there is on your side a very vague haze. You cannot address the jewish question. You cannot address the cromwellian, puritan, yankee WASP question (which is also a masons question). And you cannot address the question of usury, the sin that cries to heaven and which is connected with the the first two question. As long as you cannot address this questions you will be clueless and have no impact on things to come.

Anyway. Nothing really will happen until the great generation, the baby boomers, in Germany called the 68iger, will have lost its dominance over society. This generation will be seen in hindsight as the most narcissistic, most selfish generation ever unloosened on earth. But the archdesigners of liberalism, because they are clueless about some aspects of human nature too, missed the fact that all their programs have the effect of a complete stop of proliferation by their targets. And when the baby boomers are gone there will be a shift in white demographics towards a people who are immune to the propaganda of liberalism. What they demonstrate by having many many kids. A demographic which is not that much present in this blogospere.

Of cause there will still things happen. When they produce the first Xrated movie on a navy ship you will have a big time here. But when the next 9/11 is happening you will be flabbergasted and the victim of propaganda like with the first one. Or maybe not. One should never give up hope.

This is a useful comment. It clarifies a lot. I actually have some sympathy for you now. I can see how a patriotic German would hate America: we defeated you in battle and then imposed our system on you, a system that rapidly became the corruption under which we both now live.

But this doesn’t change the fact that you are an enemy of ours. I say this for two basic reasons. One, you do not acknowledge that there is any good in America. It would be as if I had said that Nazism was always implicit in the German people, ever since the earliest days of German civilization, and that Germany is therefore a hopeless case. We can accept legitimate criticism coming from a friend, or even a neutral observer. But you are neither.

The second reason is that you refuse to acknowledge that we have been saying all along what you have been saying, that America from the beginning has carried the seeds of the current destructive liberalism, in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We do understand the fundamental problems of the current order, but you refuse to acknowledge it, presumably because of your hatred for us.

As I have said, there is much truth in what you say about the current condition and its cause. But you come across as an enemy, not a friend. You look to cast things in the worst light possible. I therefore have no desire to converse further with you.

P.S. Regarding your statement

My American friends now are a great people and mostly belong to the 65% that did not vote. And they feel occupied like me. They must be your enemies too.

By the way Alan, just between us (I do not care if you publish my comments or not – they are anyway sketches for articles reaching audiences you and Auster can only dream of), someone who comments: “All nations have committed atrocities.” on what happened to the Irish, or on what happened from 1914 – 1945 (and later) in Europe especially to the Germans displays such a level of ignorance that it makes me flabbergasted. It does not make you my enemy but it just shows me that you to such an extent on the receiving side of the propaganda of the elites that it is just hopeless … And it makes transparent what anglo conservatism is really about.

” `The German people are a destroyed people. They are destroyed like the Irish are destroyed. Get it.´
You live in a fantasy world. There are more Germans and Irish now than there ever were.” (Tarl)
That pretty much sums it up. Give them people some merchandise after you humiliated and reeducated them(destroyed their minds). And now they are happy like you. Wow you really got it. This is exactly the soulless mindset I was talking about.
And “Mr. Fink … has forced me to mention the Nazis and their massacres”, says Alan. But why was Alan not forced to mention Versailles and Trianon and Woodrow Wilson without them Nazis and their massacres never have had happened?
What is on display here is a bourgeois, self satisfied, anti-catholic attitude. How ironic, regarding that this is the sphere of “Throne and Altar”. Defending the powers that finished Throne and Altar.
As Dawson said:
“The bourgeois lives for money, not merely as the peasant or the soldier or even the artist often does, but in a deeper sense, since money is to him what arms are to the soldier and land is to the peasant, the tools of his trade and the medium through which he expresses himself, so that he often takes an almost disinterested pleasure in his wealth because of the virtuosity he has displayed in his financial operations. In short the bourgeois is essentially a money maker, at once its servant and its master, and the development of his social ascendancy shows the degree to which civilization, and human life are dominated by the money power.”
“This is why St. Thomas and his masters, both Greeks and Christians, look with so little favor on the bourgeois. For they regarded money simply as an instrument, and therefore held that the man who lives for money perverts the true order of life. `Business´, says St. Thomas, `considered in itself, has a certain baseness inasmuch as it does not of itself involve any honorable or necessary end.´ ”
To which Michael E. Jones adds: “The Catholic ethos, on the other hand, is `erotic´, if in using the term erotic we define its quintessential type as `the religious mystic´, the ‘man of desire´, like St. Augustine or St. Francis. That means that it is obvious that the Christian ethos is essentially antibourgeois, since it is an ethos of love. This is particularly obvious in the case of St. Francis and the mediaeval mystics, who appropriated to their use the phraseology of mediaeval erotic poetry and used the antibourgeois concepts of the chivalrous class-consciousness, such as `adel´, `noble´, and `gentile´, in order to define the spiritual character of the true mystic.”
“The bourgeois mind is Protestant:
It was not until the Reformation had destroyed the control of the Church over social life in Northern Europe that we find a genuine bourgeois culture emerging. And whatever we may think of Max Weber’s thesis regarding the influence of the Reformation on the origins of capitalism, we cannot deny the fact that the bourgeois culture actually developed on Protestant soil, and especially in a Calvinist environment, while the Catholic environment seemed decidedly unfavorable to its evolution.
Catholicism and Capitalism are two mutually incompatible globalist systems which are condemned by the very nature of their creeds to aspire to universal hegemony and, therefore, be in conflict with each other.”

To subsume: When you, Alan defend America, you defend in my eyes Capitalism. And when I defend Germany, I defend Catholicism. Of course America cannot be reduced to Capitalism and Germany to Catholicism. But from Germany there came the only serious counter reaction to the anglo protestant ideology of the economics of the hidden hand with its system of state sponsored usury. A counter reaction that had to be crushed. That was the real reason why Germany had to be defeated.
Seen it his light we are really enemies, Alan. Not because I am anti American, but because I am antibourgeois.

But why was Alan not forced to mention Versailles and Trianon and Woodrow Wilson, without [which the] Nazis and their massacres never [would] have happened?

So it’s somebody else’s fault when his nation does evil. He’s assuming what he ought to be trying to prove.

What is on display here is a bourgeois, self satisfied, anti-catholic attitude.

and

When you, Alan defend America, you defend in my eyes Capitalism.

I defend “capitalism?” If “capitalism” means having independent farmers, merchants and artisans, sure, I defend capitalism. If it means the soul-destroying system of contemporary times, I don’t. See, for example, this, or this, or this, or this.

It is clear to anybody who has been paying attention that the Orthosphere does not support “Capitalism.” We support the traditional way of America and the West, based on Christianity, not on liberalism. Mr. Fink should learn more before he opens his mouth.

The real issue, in 1945, was that Germany had launched and lost two efforts to dominate Europe within 30 years. The Allies intended to prevent a third attempt, and they were more than justified in doing so. The “reeducation” of Germany converted her into a peaceful and prosperous nation – oh what a tragedy for the poor Germans!

As for the raping, killing and displacing, what goes around comes around. Soviet behavior in Germany was the direct result of German behavior in the USSR.

“The German people are a destroyed people. They are destroyed like the Irish are destroyed. Get it.”

You live in a fantasy world. There are more Germans and Irish now than there ever were.

“If I had the choice to live as a Dhimmi in Muslim Lands (still able to practice my religion) or in Elizabethan England what do you think I would prefer as a Catholic!”

America is our nation, the land where our fathers died. But America has become the homeland and headquarters of institutionalized liberalism, a liberalism that wickedly defies God and seeks to destroy Christianity, the dignity of white people, and our traditional way of life. And America aggressively seeks to export liberalism all around the world. What therefore should be our relationship with America?

Statements such as this are typical of virtually all American “conservatives.” Where ever you read them you can be sure that these statements almost always boil down to a nascent 18th and 19th century liberalism all under the guise of some argument in favor of “traditionalism.” This really gets to core of the problem and why movement conservatism is such an abject failure.

After all someone who gets it. L. Auster thinks it is something concerning Paleos and Neocons and that Paleos don´t get it that traditionalists like him are not Neocons. But his “traditionalism” (and also that of most Paleos -Buchanan endorsed Romney) is the tradition of the American Revolution. And the American Revolution was the childbed of what is called today liberalism. The USA was not founded by “The People”. The people were high degree masons. They founded America and they still rule it. All contemporary tenets of high degree masonry like birth control including abortion, euthanasia, gender-mainstreaming, anti-religion (for the outsiders) etc. are also the tenets of liberalism. Most people today are illiterates regarding the language of symbols. Otherwise they would recognize the occult symbolic embedded in the architecture of cities, streets and buildings in America (and it is not a christian symbolic). L. Auster wrote about the Democrats being an criminal enterprise (in the context of voting fraud). He should wait 4 years. In America a criminal enterprise is usually succeeded by a bigger and more ruthless criminal enterprise. Jeb is coming. It will be Bush time again. Romney was designed to loose.

L. Auster thinks it is something concerning Paleos and Neocons and that Paleos don´t get it that traditionalists like him are not Neocons.

You think Auster is delusional rather than dishonest. This is plausible, but I quite reading before I satisfied myself one way or the other.

Buchanan endorsed Romney

Could you provide a link? I saw a couple of columns in which Buchanan said a very few vaguely positive things about Mittens while violently lambasting the left/Obama, but I saw no endorsement (“I will vote for …” or “You should vote for …”)

You are defending liberalism. People here have very patiently explained this to you before and yet you continue to drone on repeating yourself as though you actually had something important to say. You are part of the problem.

“To love one’s people is to be a normal human being.”
That is true. But it is not the same as patriotism. Patriotism is usually channeling the love of one´s people into an ideology, a false consciousness, making them ripe for the war of propaganda on them. Which is especially true for the USA with its constitution con (http://goo.gl/GNOm8) and its founding myth which already had that inbuilt drive towards liberalism.
BTW the United States rests not on the love of one´s people for each other but on the most vicious and bloody civil war people fought against each other and where one segment of the people imposed its will on all the others.

We of the Orthosphere seek to identify and acknowledge what is bad about America and her founding, and what is good. We seek to separate ourselves from what is bad, and to preserve and defend what is good.

But you and “Prinz Eugen” focus on what is bad. You two attack America in her hour of greatest need. This is destructive, not helpful. If you really do love America, speak of her faults with a respectful mourning, and seek to magnify the good.

The good thing about America, dear Alan, the good thing will be that in America the fight will be fought to the end. The good fight. But this will mean the destruction of the America you still hold dear. Sorry for you. I haven´t realized that you and maybe the whole Orthosphere are still so affected by the big lie that was America. A lie maintained by an prosperity unprecedented in history. Which is now crumbling. The decline of America is a relief for the world. I will now leave your sphere. But Alan, when the real fight, the good fight, will be fought to the end, watch out that you do not find yourself on the wrong side.

“To every steadfast man of the right, the downfall of America is a warm hope; and behold! its chief brings hope, as he said he would, albeit in a glimmer only and not quite as he meant it. America: a blight upon the world, a pox-ridden beast set free from the disease-laboratory of Europe, run amok, reinfecting again and again and again its sinful, careless, and now wretched begetter — may this re-election mark the beginning of its end.”
Deogowulf

There is no hatred coming from me, Alan. I do not hate anyone, not even my enemies (I try). And you are not an enemy. There is, I admit, a little Schadenfreude. Sorry. But to people like Auster and yourself it was told many, many times in the past that America is lost. It was told to you by people who deducted this view based on an analysis that the drive towards liberalism was implemented in the founding of America from the very beginning. This view was rediculed (see the Moldbug Auster discussion). And now it is on VfR big time: “America is lost”, “Forever”! So. What. America can get lost by one election? Give me a break. And before you and Auster have big thoughts about what we must do, you (and other mainstream conservatives or traditionalists or whatever) should maybe reflect a little about your being out of sync with reality before this election. Otherwise your roadmap into a future in which the America you cherished is forever lost may also be out of sync with reality. Best wishes.

And if you think that pre-1960’s America is „a concrete model to emulate“ I must humbly object. The 50`s, the cherished 50´s, were the beginning of white flight, which was foremost Catholic flight. It was the time of a planned assault on Catholic ethnicity in the USA. It was the destruction of ethnic Catholic parishes in the big Cities of the North. Driving Catholics into the anonymity of the suburbs, dismantling them from their ethnicity, making them ready for american values what foremost meant birth control (so stopping their proliferation because Catholics were about to become the majority in the USA. Very much to the displeasure of the WASP Elites. And for that their Rockefeller Foundation funded among others a pervert like Kinsey.). So much for the pre-1960´s. I can tell you for every decade a story of imposing “american values” on people that have been happy without them.
Another What We Must Do out of sync idea is this secession thing. The Hyper Power of the earth will let parts of its home base secede? How ridiculous. BTW a lot of this people who want to secede buy at the same time into the propaganda of Sauron (Hyper Power). They believe there is a war on terror and other shams. So the best thought to think when you come to think that America is lost is that the America you think is lost has maybe never existed.

The entire thrust of your comments in this thread, and the comments of Mr. Fink (of which you approve), is hatred of America on account of its liberalism. You two claim, in effect, that America has from the start been something like a criminal enterprise. There is no mistaking your hostility, which emanates from all of your words here. It is not “liberalism” to point this out.

If you do not actually hate America, if you have some affection for my nation and some hope that part of it may be saved, then you need to make this clear. Until you do, I have no choice but to regard you two as enemies. I would be happy to change my appraisal of you two, but I need to see some evidence first.

What nation has not been hostile to the Church? Rome certainly was; and Greece, Israel, Britain, Mr. Fink’s Germany, Mexico, &c. Indeed, is it not true that the whole world is contra the Church, and will remain so, to some extent (the extent to which it is not yet fully converted), until Christ is all in all?

Most of those countries were not consistently through their entire anti-Catholic like the United States was. Also the US is arguably the only country to have explicitly been founded as being opposed to the Catholic Church or at least the political social order of Christendom. This in my mind is what makes America unique.

Though I would tend to agree that most countries/empires are anti-Christian most of the time (that includes Byzantium too)

Rome persecuted the Church for 313 years. America is nowhere near that yet. And we have martyred exactly 0 Christians; compared to Rome, we don’t even register on the anti-Christianity scale.

Don’t get me wrong: America looks ready to make up for lost time in a big way. And apart from our Great Awakenings, we have (just like all nations in between their awakenings) been no very staunch friend of the faith. But as enemies of the faith, we are mostly bark, and no bite.

Rome persecuted the Church for 313 years. America is nowhere near that yet. And we have martyred exactly 0 Christians; compared to Rome, we don’t even register on the anti-Christianity scale.

This does not really address my point. Rome was converted. America has not and like the USSR will collapse before it will be converted. I agree that Catholics ought to try and convert America or whatever remains but if Catholics were to do this a new “Catholic America” would be substantially different would it not? More different than many non-Catholic American conservatives would like I think.

And no I do not think some at the Orthosphere are interested in actually converting America, since many of these same people think there was nothing really wrong with it in conception. There can be no common cause.

I’m trying to show you that your conviction that America is an especially Godless nation is errant. Physician, heal thyself and pluck first the beam out of your own eye and that sort of thing. America is indeed sinful – I cannot imagine that anyone here would dispute that. But I find it just absurd and silly to suggest that America is more anti-Christian than the Venetians and Franks who sacked Constantinople, or the Vikings who sold Christian Slavs and Irishmen to Moorish slavers, or the Russians and Bulgarians who martyred thousands of priests. And if you think a site full of monarchists and advocates of establishment has no quibble with the Constitution, you simply haven’t been reading what we write.

You’re tilting at windmills. I’m trying to save you the trouble. I do the same thing for atheists and democrats.

I don’t understand how you Christians can worry so much about politics when you don’t even have a seriously traditional form of Christianity to belong to. Without a sound traditional religion, not much is possible. Of course I know that there are traditional Christians out there, but you all belong to Christian sects where the majority are not really traditional. So my suggestion for what you Christians must do is to create a seriously traditional form of Christianity. Something like what Hasidic Judaism is to Judaism. Once you have a really traditional Christian sect, then you can develop institutions based on that sect to serve its members. This will allow you to preserve traditional Christianity and pass it down to your children and grandchildren. Without such a sect, traditional Christianity will dissipate and eventually disappear.

the subversion of the church leadership by secular Leftism all through Christendom means that real Christians enemies include those supposedly in spiritual authority.

Thus real Christians are chronically at loggerheads with the leadership in all major denominations; and traditional structure of authority must be side-stepped;

as when the ultra-Roman SSPX went outside the Roman communion; or serious Anglican Protestants need to seek Episcopal supervision and ordination from South America or Africa; or when devout members of the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia remain as a remnant when the Overseas church was reabsorbed by the Moscow Patriarchy.

*

I envisage a situation when Christian life is an affair of Home Churches with lay Pastors on the Protestant side, and infrequent and irregular Catacomb meetings on the Catholic side (with Romans especially suffering infrequent and irregular Mass) – yet this skeletal life ought also to be structured at a mystical level (the most important level) by knowledge, memory of, and veneration for the great Christian civilisations of the past.

I don’t understand how you Christians can worry so much about politics

It’s inertia, obviously. For 1500 years, our civilization—all of it, including the politics—was self-consciously based on traditional Christianity. We’re not used to being in the catacombs any more. We have to figure it out again. And first we have to realize, in an action-oriented, gut-and-not-just-head way that something really, truly has to be done. This is not that easy given that we’re not currently being fed to the lions, live and streaming from Netflix.

So my suggestion for what you Christians must do is to create a seriously traditional form of Christianity.

Working on it. Tarl mentions the SSPX. There are several conscious efforts by traditionalist Catholics to take over specific geographical areas—the most famous of which is St Mary’s, KS by the SSPX. One can hope that Rome decides to quit stomping on Traditional Catholicism’s neck sometime soon. The opposition of the Pope makes Traditional Catholicism an intellectually difficult thing to adhere to, kinda.

On dreaming and its repercussions: To dream is to believe, to believe is to know, to know is to love, to love is to live, to live is to die and it is better to die a free man than as a slave to liberal deconstructionists and their atavistic horde.

1) To expect that Romney could have ever “slowed” the course of liberalism is to express a certain naivete that I do not believe the author of the article really intended, or believes. Of course, since he expresses it simply as a “hope,” one is not inclined to begrudge, especially since the Democrats promised not only hope, but also change–they have much more penance to do, and much more for which to atone.

2) To suppose that Romney, because of his own faith, would be capable of preserving a Christian nation shows just how distorted the very idea of Christianity has become.

3) Liberalism is a way of feeling, and sometimes even a way of thinking. As such, it cannot be divorced from those who think and feel. It is a shorthand means of speaking about people expressing and living a peculiar way of life–or as some may call it, anti-life. But we must remember that liberals have walked a long way, and it’s been a long while since they first arrived at our door. And unless we understand the path from whence these “uncanniest of guests” traveled, eventually making it to our doorstep, we will never be able to show them the way out. Especially now that they’ve entered our living room, robbed our kitchen, and are sleeping in our bed.

4) None of it should be surprising. What we now witness is really a logical progression from certain common sources, originally very different in style, but common nevertheless.

5) The idea that the United States is not a “proposition” can not be understood apart from the basic tenants of liberalism. The Enlightenment seed within the Founding set the stage for what we have now, even if it is certain that the Founders did not envision, nor did they anticipate the consequences of their liberalism–ideals that, for them, were not meant to be inclusive in practice, but given their way of thinking along with their written principles, could not but help to become so, at least with a little massaging and a little redaction, here and there.

6) Perhaps the first modern liberal political theorist, Thomas Hobbes, understood best the fundamental contradiction within the liberal genesis. That is, in order to preserve any semblance of a traditional civil order, free men essentially had to “transfer” their freedom (their “right of nature”) to an independent sovereign, because if they didn’t, then individual citizens would necessarily remain tied to the natural state. And it was this natural state that, for Hobbes, civil society was meant to assuage.

This understanding is the correct one if one is to be a liberal and still expect to maintain a coherent social order. On the other hand, it is very difficult to eat a cake, and still have it for later. And because of it, this contradiction was not well understood, and even seen as hateful to the intellectual heirs of the American founding–specifically Locke, from whom Jefferson would attempt to mimic. For his part, Locke attempted to bridge the Classical and Modern ground abandoned by the more sophisticated modern, Hobbes, and as such Locke still clung to a limited idea of telos, a man’s natural end about which government should somehow support. Because Jefferson did not understand the metaphysical ground of liberalism, that is, that equal right held by individuals necessarily presumes equality from the beginning, his words were easily used against him by those who understood the first part of the contradiction (equality of right), but couldn’t care less about the second (the natural end of man).

7) We must also remember, that Jeffersonian liberalism was not simply a positive equality, but rather a metaphysical ground. All men were “created” equal, and once natural equality is admitted, the logical progression is pretty much what we have, now. That is to say, it is to wind up living in an unnatural civil “order.” It is unnatural because Hobbes and his fellow liberals were wrong about the fundamental nature of man. Man is by nature unequal, and equal right is not the justification or genesis of civil order. Instead, we must turn to traditional ideas of justice. Not modern legal justice based upon positive law, but rather a justice stemming from an earlier understanding, where hierarchy and inequality are part of a natural order.

8) Classical inequality has both its theoretical foundation (really, it is also an empirical foundation) and a practical support within the Classical philosophy, most notably Plato, but more analytically in Aristotle’s politics and metaphysics. The subsequent Christianization of Aristotle by the Church, specifically St. Thomas, undoubtedly contributed to the much later generation of liberalism, primarily due to the consequences of merging Aristotelian and Christian metaphysics (that is, the Aristotelian hylomorphic composition, where “form” is now taken as the Christian soul, and “matter” the corruptible body), along with a later epistemology promulgated by a certain school of mostly Christian nominalists, and taken up in a secular form with the advent of the new science (of which Hobbes was in full agreement).

9) From this extensive (and I hope not too long-winded) historical overview, it should be clear that nothing will come from hope, and little will change. There is too much history to overcome. If it is ever to happen, what will be necessary is not a revision of the existing political order, but its replacement with a new order. However, any new order must first be predicated upon a recovery of what was once known, but now forgotten. Whether it could at all be possible in the present age or near future is unlikely. One thing is for sure, such a radical (i.e., going back to the root) transformation will take skill and effort from an extraordinary man, or men. It will not arise from folks such as Mitt Romney.

I’m pretty sure that man are unequal in all of those aspects. Unequal “by nature” biologically. Political and spiritually I’d say that maybe a little by nature, but mostly by unfluence of the society around it.

Vishmehr24: It is a good question, and one that must be understood in depth, but also one that cannot be answered simply. Man is outwardly unequal in many conditions, that much is certain. Intellect, capacity for judgement, physical strength, good looks, etc. Try as he may, a man cannot overcome the natural limitations of his condition, although he will certainly benefit both himself and others by maximizing whatever he is given.

The capacity for moral goodness, however, does not at first seem to be in the same category as those attributes cited above; yet the moral nature is tied to certain cultural teachings, sometimes similar across cultures, and sometimes not. Culture, in its highest form, civilization, is not equal for all races, and in fact some never developed it at all. When understanding different peoples, their history must be considered, especially when the question is their ability to adapt, and their ability to rule. One thing is certain: culture must be cultivated in order for it to progress. The idea of a mechanical cultural evolution (progression) cannot be accepted. In an organic social order, an order tied to and developed by like minded folk, cultural teachings will have already made arrangements for distinctions within the differing natural ability of different men. And they will be directed toward his natural end, as best and he is able to conceive it.

If we accept the notion of the composition of substance, then man is by nature a combination of matter and form, the latter being usually understood as spiritual, or non-material. The relation between form and matter is a question that cannot be easily answered, but the question’s solution is most important for us if we are to solve our current dilemma. That is, is it the case that the form of man, his spiritual essence, is more than similar across all the different types of men, and is in fact essentially the same for each instance of a particular man, regardless of his outward appearance? If so, we can say that it is only the vagaries of man’s material condition, along with his external situation that is responsible for difference (education, class, wealth, climate, location, subjection by others, etc.). We can also say that, in principle, all men are equal, at least spiritually.

On the other hand, if it is the case that certain groups possess different intrinsic form, and that it is this formal difference that primarily distinguishes the different “kinds” of men, then the situation is a bit different, and our conclusions must be directed away from the fundamental principles of liberalism, both political and religious.

Whatever the case (and it is a big whatever), the idea that all men are virtuous with equal capacity for prudence, restraint, courage, and justice, can be understood less from a metaphysical standpoint, but viewed empirically. And seen from this more practical ground we find that within a democracy those who mostly lack virtues are the ones who ultimately decide whom exercises political control. And because of that fact, only decline can ever be expected from this sort of regime.

But this is what we abandoned, and we are reluctant to repent and re-embrace it; because it seems to be at too high a cost in lost pleasures and distractions. We try to keep these, while defeating liberalism – but it can’t be done.

Sooner or later T, O & P religion will sweep aside liberalism – and if it is not Christianity, then it will surely be Christianity’s most formidable rival.

I’ll throw an amateurish idea into the ring : There are two ways in which to deal with an oppressive power.

The first is of course debate, and argumentation. You prove to others that the existing ruling elite is wrong, and that to follow them is wrong. However, and most importantly, this must be done in a language that the people can understand. People cannot understand arguments that are not within their frame of reality. This means that most people will in fact never be convinced by anything that you say, but you need not reach many, just a few (those few who actually ARE the society, not the ones blindly floating along).

The second is ridicule. Assuming you are right, and you can explain why you are right and communicate it in such a way that the logic is obvious to any listeners, you have a trump card against liberals – they cannot stand someone seeming smarter, more well-read or simply a better person than them. Thus, the optimal way of debating a liberal is to explain in a calm and easily comprehensible manner why they are wrong, and simultaneously treat them like a small child. This will quite often result in their heads exploding and vividly exposing their illogical nonsense for what it really is – ideas driven simply by irrational second-hand feelings.

Anyways, it is actually quite encouraging to see that some of those who oppose the liberal-democratic state is starting to realize that the battle won’t be won politically. For anyone that believes anything else than the current nonsense, the only option and only purpose in this struggle should be to keep the lights on, and not let the ideas go lost, because the liberal-democratic egalitarian welfare state WILL destroy itself. That, I guarantee you. And at some point, people will be desperate enough for an alternative to actually start listening. Assuming that there are people still around that can explain to them how a society should work, there is at least a fighting chance to save Western Civilization. Otherwise, I’m afraid there will be mostly darkness.

Debate is clearly useless. On an intellectual level, the reactionary right has it sewn up. But the leftist mainstream cares nothing for debate; rationality itself has been defined down to mere self interest. The average second sigma liberal wouldn’t know a rational argument if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.

Violence is clearly not (yet) in the cards. Too few of us, and too few well-placed colonels.

Mockery is all that remains. This is one thing that Jehu (Chariot of Reaction) harps on a lot: we need more mocking. Mock the establishment, mock self-righteous puritanical dweebs, mock the system, mock Wall Street, mock voting, mock democracy, mock the stupid founding myths. What is needed is a New Monty Python’s Flying Circus with its sights set on the current regime…

After a couple generations for that, we might (might) be strong enough for the 3rd solution, whereupon we shall all require the guts to endorse it.

Mockery is of limited value. And unless it is defensive, violence is worse than useless.

The real value of words is their power to depict. To create a mental picture. A picture that attracts. Debate rarely changes minds, but the raw statement of truth changes minds by attracting them to the truth.

A good strategist always designs battle plans for the army he has, not the army he wishes he had. All the talk about debate and mockery ignores the fact that the Enemy controls the cognitive elite. The most important thing in intellectual battles is not the veracity of your beliefs or the cogency of your arguments, but raw intellectual fire power. You need a lot of people with very high verbal IQ. If we had any Monte Python caliber satirists on our side waiting on the wings, I certainly would tell them to get to work mocking the Left, but we don’t. In a debate, the main things that matter are having a quicker wit and being able to plan more steps ahead than your opponent. Thus, the allegiance of high-IQ minorities to the Left (I am primarily speaking, of course, about the Jews) is a devastating disadvantage for us. I consider myself above average in my ability to articulate the reactionary point of view, but I would never agree to participate in a debate. Even in small towns, the Left could easily find dozens of high-IQ Jews, any one of whom could make mincemeat out of me. Setting aside Jews and Asians, the Left would still have more intellectual power, because nearly anyone with a graduate degree will have been subjected to so much of their propaganda that they will have long since given in. Of course, having a PhD doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is very smart, but I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a positive correlation.

I love my people, but I’ve got to admit that they’re just not as bright as the Enemy’s people. I guess that leaves violence, the last refuge of the dullard. I don’t fancy our chances on that front either, though.

The question is how to make the best use of limited intellectual fire power. My recommendations:

1) Blogs are better than debates, because they only require that one be able to think well and deeply, not quickly. Plus, they allow the blogger to control the subjects.

2) When making an argument to the wider public, be extremely focused on the point you’re arguing. Do not allow yourself to take positions on any other issues, especially technical issues outside your competence. Every claim you make is a point you must be prepared to defend. This doesn’t mean you should automatically concede all unnecessary points to the liberal. This has been a disastrous strategy, in that what is unnecessary regarding one issue might be vital to the conservative position on some other issue. Rather, you point out that the truth of your claim is logically independent of the side issues the liberal might bring up. When you do counter false statistics and false history, state your claim very carefully. Remember that the statisticians and historians are all on the other side and will be happy to nitpick your statement to declare a victory for their team.

3) Don’t try to infiltrate Hollywood. You’ll just embarrass yourself trying to compete with the high-IQ crowd. Explore forms of artistic expression that can be carried out by local communities with limited resources. It would be a wonderful thing in any case if community singing and storytelling were to make a comeback, so that more people could be creators of art and not merely consumers. A centralized global entertainment industry will never be able to give expression to any particular culture’s way of life.

4) Maintain a toehold in the intellectual elite. It’s important that we maintain a few scientists, historians, etc to provide technical advice from a friendly source.

I’ve said this to you before, bonald, but I think you are selling yourself short, and reactionaries in general, too. I’ve never met any liberal whom I couldn’t demolish in argumentation on these questions. Sometimes I guess maybe it’s possible I haven’t met very many yet, but I hang around socially with lots of the best trained, most argumentative people in our culture – high powered lawyers – so …

I don’t think I’m any smarter than these guys. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’m not. But I have the advantage of many years of practice thinking things through all the way to first principles, which almost none of them ever do. They are, instead, glib. Reactionaries have the huge intellectual advantage of operating from first principles. Liberals don’t have any principles, so they are really at sea when you come at them that way. Their doctrine is incoherent, and it is not difficult to demonstrate this to them. I tend to make my liberal interlocutors crazed with frustration. The liberal spectators of such disputes get very quiet.

bonald, there is no need for battle. Just withdraw and focus on defense. Liberal culture will collapse on its own. Yes it will take a century or two. So you need to set up a strong defensive culture that can last that long. The best example of what is possible is Hasidic Judaism. This is traditional Judaism for low-IQ Jews (and yes, there are plenty). Please watch Oprah with a Hasidic Family and A Life Apart: Hasidism in America to see what is possible. I personally wish that all religions, from Christianity to Confucianism, will find a way to preserve their traditions, and that is why I post here.

Oh really? I’ll bet “Every sperm is sacred” did more damage to the traditional Christian view on contraception than the sum of all reasoned arguments against it. It was not for nothing that medievals had a list of forbidden books. And why do we not have such lists today? Hmmm… they were mocked out of existence.

Why do you think Bonald is so ssscared of going up against those clever Jews and secular masters who will make “mincemeat” of him? Does he really think they are genuinely smarter (than he a friggin astrophysicist?), that they genuinely have better, tighter arguments? No way. The reason is that our masters came to their power quite honestly, by mocking opposing arguments.

And, hey, if that works, it obtains a substantially lower body count than Option Three.

Mockery does not work unless the audience agrees with the worldview it is supporting. Try, for example, mocking feminism at a “Women’s Studies” seminar. Once the people are convinced, then yes, mockery can be used to demolish the institutions that remain from the prior way of life. If the people have a basically liberal worldview, but traditional morality remains from the old days as a cultural habit, then mockery can speed its demise.

For us, though, mockery is of limited value.

As for violence, it will do nothing but get us crushed. At this point, we need to attract converts, not physically intimidate our opponents.

@brucecharlton
“which groups are successful reactionaries ”
Successful reactionaries?.
Who are they?
Also Devil and his minions need to be mocked. Mercilessly. It has been the traditional Christian position, if I am not mistaken. God mocks them too.

I’m completely serious. Due to family connections, I have spent quite a lot of time with ultra-Orthodox Jews, sometimes in environments where most of the people around me don’t know I’m not Jewish. They are mostly wonderful people, very family-oriented, and I have a lot of respect for them. The topic of Christians and Christianity doesn’t come up very often – but believe me, when it does come up, many do mock us. Typically, they don’t believe Christianity is an intellectually respectable position that they disagree with, they believe it’s stupid and suitable only for stupid people, and they don’t seem very hesitant about expressing this amongst themselves.

Whether or not we should be mockers is another question, but the idea that serious, successful reactionaries never mock is simply false.

How about as a strategy for reinforcing that leftism is “off-limits” for those already on our side who might be inclined to embrace some of leftism? For instance, among my wishy-washy Catholic friends, I’ve taken to ridiculing some of their heroes and icons as sissy perverts. It’s had mixed results, which is better than no results.

I read what you said about mockery not being a successful strategy, and have not claimed you are suggesting prohibiting mockery. (Personally, I think mockery may not be a good idea, but on moral or cultural, rather than strategic, grounds. I’m still thinking about it.)

I am simply pointing out that one of the examples you cite as evidence that mockery is not a successful strategy, is simply wrong.

And when did I ever say they are mocking Leftism? A surprising number are somewhat leftist themselves. They do mock Christianity and gentiles. And yes, I do think it quite possible that this in-house mockery of outsiders is part of their success, a prophylactic to guard against anyone spending even two seconds to find out what Christianity actually teaches, and another ‘fence’ to make it extra-unthinkable to leave – not only will you be shunned, everyone will think you’re a moron!

And I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if this attitude towards Christians is the direct antecedent to similar attitudes common in secular Jewish culture.

That pretty much sums it up. Give them people some merchandise after you humiliated and reeducated them(destroyed their minds). And now they are happy like you. Wow you really got it. This is exactly the soulless mindset I was talking about.

You’d have a better argument here if Nazism wasn’t a soulless, anti-Christian force that seeked to exterminate ancient nations in Eastern Europe and subjugate the ancient nations of Western Europe. I don’t know what kind of traditionalist or Christian you consider yourself, but the Nazis hated tradition and Christianity.

Basically, the Nazis needed to be humiliated and reeducated.

why was Alan not forced to mention Versailles and Trianon and Woodrow Wilson without them Nazis and their massacres never have had happened?

You defend Catholicism by defending the regime that killed millions of Polish and French Catholics; that confiscated Church property in Germany; that suppressed religious publications and organizations in Germany; that publicly described the Catholic Church as a “degenerated ulcer in the German racial corpus”; and, that was lengthily condemned by the Pope (and many German Catholics) as anti-Christian.

Ach Tarl, you want to misunderstand me. I defend Germany, nor Nazism. For me Hitler was an Anglophilic traitor. Most of his ideas, especially the ones about race and eugenics he got from the Anglosphere. He was an admirer of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
But that the treaty of Versailles and Trianon was unjust towards Germany, Austria and Hungary was acknowledged by even many of their enemies. You want a list of American, French, British politicians, historians and economists who acknowledge this as much as the fact, that this treaties created the chaos and desperation which brought the Nazis to power? And even for that, had Hitler just depended on the German Catholics he would never risen to power. It was Protestant Germany that was in such overwhelming enthusiasm going for this pied piper. And it was Woodrow Wilsons and the Anglosperes hate for the old regimes of Continental Europe, especially the Habsburgs, that made this possible. The same hate on the Habsburgs that brought (Catholic) Cardinal Richelieu to incite Protestant Sweden to intervene 1629 in Germany, preventing Germany to become what it once was and with the blessing of the Lord once will be again: An unified Catholic country, loyal to the Church. Something I hope that will happen also to America. Something you dream about, too Tarl?

And also Tarl, when I wrote that “from Germany there came the only serious counter reaction to the anglo protestant ideology of the economics of the hidden hand with its system of state sponsored usury”; this has nothing to do with Nazism. Nazism was designed so that “the only serious counter reaction” could be crushed and destroyed for good (not finally, but in the imagination of the crushers it was finally). It has more to do with Kant versus Hume or grasped broader German idealism versus Anglo empiricism. Very deep water. I am diving in it but my aquanautics are certainly not immaculate.

I disagree. These treaties were certainly not more unjust than the Treaty of Versailles (1871), in which Germany imposed upon France the demand for war reparations and the loss of national territory, or the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, in which Germany extracted money from Russia and imposed crippling losses of territory on her. Nor were Versailles/Trianon more unjust than what Germany intended to do to France if Germany had won (see Fritz Fischer, Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914–1918).

You want a list of American, French, British politicians, historians and economists who acknowledge this

In fact, the majority of historians REJECT the idea that Versailles was too harsh. For example:

Margaret MacMillan, Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War
Étienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace (showed that Germany could have paid all of the reparations had they wanted to, and that the problem was not the Germans were unable to pay, but rather that they were unwilling to pay)
William R. Keylor, The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (showed that increased taxation and reduction in consumption in the Weimar Republic would have yielded the requisite export surplus to generate the foreign exchange needed to service the reparation debt)
Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War (argued that Germany could have paid reparations had there been the political will)

treaties created the chaos and desperation which brought the Nazis to power

Nonsense. Germany destroyed her economy rather than pay the reparations — that is what caused the “chaos and desperation”, not the punitive nature of the reparations.

Woodrow Wilsons and the Anglosperes hate for the old regimes of Continental Europe, especially the Habsburgs, that made this possible

On the contrary, the United States did not encourage nor believe that the responsibility for the war that Article 231 placed on Germany was fair or warranted.

I defend Germany, nor Nazism.

I hope you can appreciate that people might reasonably interpret the following arguments you made in this thread as a defense of Nazism:
– you blame the Nazis on Woodrow Wilson, Versailles, and Trianon
– you insist that Germany was unfairly treated before, during, and after WW2
– you complain that the Nazis were wrongly “demonized beyond recognition” and “transformed into criminals”
– you argue that the Germans were “destroyed as a people” in 1945 when they plainly were not
– you rant about the “Jewish question”
– you contend that unusually severe and unprecedented “atrocities” were inflicted on the Germans from 1939-45